LETTER | Why delay establishing Law Reform Commission?

LETTER | The proposal by the government to establish a permanent Law Reform Commission is not new.

It was raised by the then-deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Liew Vui Keong, as far back as 2011.

It was again mentioned by the then-minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Aziz, in 2012.

The Malaysian Bar has long supported the establishment of such a commission. In 2019, the cabinet was reported to have approved the establishment of a law commission.

The Bar takes the position that there should be a standing and independent Law Reform Commission established by an act of Parliament.

It should not operate within or under the Prime Minister’s Department, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) or any ministry, and should be free from political influence and political considerations.

An eminent retired judge or a nominee of the Bar should chair the commission.

Civil society organisations must also have meaningful representation, together with experienced parliamentary and legislative draftsmen, and other relevant experts and stakeholders.

Groundwork done

Much of the groundwork for reform has already been laid. In 2018, the Bar submitted 55 proposals to the Institutional Reforms Committee (IRC) covering Parliament, the Election Commission, the judiciary and Judicial Appointments Commission, the AGC, enforcement agencies and other areas of law reform.

In February 2023, the Bar again made 60 submissions on institutional and law reforms to the minister and the then-deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform).

Some of these reforms have since been taken up or are now being pursued, including the separation of the offices of the attorney-general and public prosecutor, freedom of information, the proposed Ombudsman, and parliamentary reform.

However, not all governmental bills have meaningfully reflected the Bar’s proposals.

Reforms to draconian laws

Among the commission’s first priorities should be laws which the Malaysian Bar has consistently called upon to be repealed or substantially reformed, including the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), Sedition Act 1948, Prevention of Crime Act 1959, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015, Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and the National Security Council Act 2016.

Meaningful freedom of information legislation and stronger whistleblower protection should also be made priorities.

There is also unfinished business from the 2018 institutional reform exercise. The IRC submitted its final report to the government in July 2018.

However, despite calls for its release, including by the Bar, the report has yet to be published after eight years.

In 2023, the government stated that a memorandum to make the report public would be brought to cabinet, and that the IRC’s recommendations would be taken into account in the government’s institutional reform agenda.

Much time has been wasted repeating the need for the commission. It should be established forthwith.

Writer is the president of the Malaysian Bar.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Malaysian Bar calls for credible probe into claims involving Azam

Malaysian Bar: Walk to defend judicial institution, not individual judges

Malaysian Bar confirms walk for judiciary on July 14